Are You A Good Man....

[Roy]

In your fallacy you are asserting ability from no ability. Something from nothing. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. If you were right, you wouldn't have been able to post, since you would never have progressed beyond your initial inability to type.

[37818]

Yes, you are wrong. If you were right, you wouldn't have been able to post, since you would never have progressed beyond your initial inability to type.

What you are saying makes no sense. If I am right,, there is ability, and ability comes from ability.

[Roy]

What you are saying makes no sense. If I am right,, there is ability, and ability comes from ability.

You can obviously type now. Could you type when you were born? Or before you were born?

If not, then your ability (to type) must have come from an inability (to type). An ability can come from an inability, and an inability is not the same as 'nothing'.

You are wrong.

[Tassman]

That is merely an assertion since a local event would not effect these laws in general.

Well we have two possible choices, the universe was created and is governed by the Rational or the non-rational.

What part of this shows that gods exist?

Not the point, you can not know, you may have faith that it is so (universally), and you have no idea what these non-rational forces will do tomorrow.

[Tassman]

In your fallacy you are asserting ability from no ability. Something from nothing. Am I wrong? You have asserted certain abilities to natural physical universe. Which are in evidence. There are only two simple possibilities: 1) Ability from no ability and 2) Ability from ability. Now which two views do you hold?

Claims uncited evidence. The article presents no evidence.

What is your evidence that we live in an infinite greater cosmos?

Much evidence in science is from predictions based upon existing knowledge. E.g. it took many decades to see the predicted Cosmic Microwave Background, and nearly sixty to verify the existence of the predicted Higgs Boson. The same applied to the discovery of all of the Quarks. When these phenomena were first proposed there were no existing experiments to verify their existence but many indicators predicted their existence. The same applies to Multiverse theory. At the very least it cannot be ruled out at this stage.

[seer]

But you have no idea if they are always they are always predictable. That is an assumption on your part.

What part of this shows that gods exist?

I didn't say it proved God, only that a universe governed by rationality would be better than one governed by the non-rational - don't you agree?


No you don't - that is inductive reasoning - like saying all the swans I examined are white, therefore all swans are white. It doesn't follow Tass. Do we know why these laws remain constant? No we don't, we have to assume the uniformity of nature.

[37818]

Huh. Learing is also an ability.

What is your evidence that we live in an infinite greater cosmos?

The same type of the lack of evidence you think for there being no God. Which comes to your idea of God. What is your concept of God? The observable expansion of the universe places an age of not more that 14 billion years from which the observable universe would be a point of no dimension. There is no observation [evidence] beyond it.

Much evidence in science is from predictions based upon existing knowledge. E.g. it took many decades to see the predicted Cosmic Microwave Background, and nearly sixty to verify the existence of the predicted Higgs Boson. The same applied to the discovery of all of the Quarks. When these phenomena were first proposed there were no existing experiments to verify their existence but many indicators predicted their existence. The same applies to Multiverse theory. At the very least it cannot be ruled out at this stage.

All of this begs of abilities. Abilities do not come from nothing.

[JimL]

Huh. Learing is also an ability.


The same type of the lack of evidence you think for there being no God. Which comes to your idea of God. What is your concept of God? The observable expansion of the universe places an age of not more that 14 billion years from which the observable universe would be a point of no dimension. There is no observation [evidence] beyond it.
All of this begs of abilities. Abilities do not come from nothing.

And yet you believe the universe to have come from nothing!

[37818]

And yet you believe the universe to have come from nothing!

No. Not in and of itself. God made the created universe from not anything except by means of His infinite power through His agent His Son.

[JimL]

No. Not in and of itself. God made the created universe from not anything except by means of His infinite power through His agent His Son.

Made it through his son, or made it out of his son? Because if he didn't make it out of his son, aka out of himself, then he made it out of nothing.

[Tassman]

But you have no idea if they are always they are always predictable. That is an assumption on your part.

Yes, but all the laws and constants so far discovered in nature do not appear to change over time, they also appear to exist throughout the universe. They have been verified so far. OTOH miracles have not been shown to exist.

I didn't say it proved God, only that a universe governed by rationality would be better than one governed by the non-rational - don't you agree?

No you don't - that is inductive reasoning - like saying all the swans I examined are white, therefore all swans are white. It doesn't follow Tass. Do we know why these laws remain constant? No we don't, we have to assume the uniformity of nature.

unverifiable assumption that god-did-it.

[Tassman]

Huh. Learing is also an ability.

Yes, so?

The same type of the lack of evidence you think for there being no God. Which comes to your idea of God. What is your concept of God? The observable expansion of the universe places an age of not more that 14 billion years from which the observable universe would be a point of no dimension. There is no observation [evidence] beyond it.

Multiverse theory is put forward by some Cosmologists to explain puzzling observations and questions that are unanswerable without such a theory. The point is that the concept of an infinite multiverse cannot be ruled out at this stage.

All of this begs of abilities. Abilities do not come from nothing.

is an unacceptable Argument from Ignorance.

[seer]

Yes, but all the laws and constants so far discovered in nature do not appear to change over time, they also appear to exist throughout the universe. They have been verified so far. OTOH miracles have not been shown to exist.

That wasn't the point.



So you believe a non-rational universe would be somehow better or more trustworthy than a universe governed by rationality? And BTW - you can not demonstrate that this universe was created by natural forces.

unverifiable assumption that god-did-it.

This is nonsense, you still are taking a leap in logic. Again: all the swans I examined are white, therefore all swans are white. The fallacy in reasoning is obvious, and you are doing the same thing.

[Tassman]

That wasn't the point.

So you believe a non-rational universe would be somehow better or more trustworthy than a universe governed by rationality?

And BTW - you can not demonstrate that this universe was created by natural forces.

This is nonsense, you still are taking a leap in logic. Again: all the swans I examined are white, therefore all swans are white. The fallacy in reasoning is obvious, and you are doing the same thing.

[seer]

What do you mean miracles have not been shown to exist? By definition they would be rare and most likely local. They are not events you can confirm by science, they would be related historically. Like the fern event I related.


That is not what I asked Tass - why wouldn't a universe governed by rationality be more trustworthy than one governed by non-rational forces?


You are begging the question - that a natural universe must have been created by a natural pre-existing force. There is zero evidence that that is so.

Then prove deductively that the sun will rise tomorrow. You can't, you can not know if the laws of nature will act tomorrow as they acted today.